User talk:70.66.59.163

Welcome!

Hello 70.66.59.163!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (70.66.59.163) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started.

Happy editing! CupcakePerson13 (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Talk pages

Thanks for the work you've been putting into COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia. If you would like to discuss how to improve an article, it's better to start discussions in the associated talk page (e.g., Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 21:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination history

Not adhering to neutral point of view

Hello. Your latest edits to the COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia article did not seem to be written from a neutral point of view, and therefore have been removed. There is a policy called Wikipedia:Neutral point of view that you can read if you'd like to learn more about that. If you have any questions, feel free to message me on my talk page. Thank you! --— SkiMaskA⭐^(💬Talk) 10:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

70.66.59.163 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Regards COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia @HighInBC, there is an ongoing technical difficulties from an external reference pages that made me behave that badly. You were discriminating against my autism.
During this blockage, I would like you to temporarily take over my update role by doing the following favours:
1. The Health bar template section (The horizontal bars)(Daily)
2. Sections of "Vaccination progress" and "Cases by health authority" (Daily)
3. "Statistical data"(Line graphs), Wednesdays
4. The table of "Cases, Deaths, Recoveries and vaccination September 2021 to December 2021" located near the bottom of the article before the references, for the row of October 27, 2021. At the bottom row, change the next update row to "November 3, 2021."
5. "Variants of concern" (For Friday, October 29, 2021). Change to "November 5, 2021" (I return that day)
Here are the sources
1 2 3
To be frank, if not because of all these technical difficulties from the external sites, this block would not even be happening!
Yes I do have anger issue so you know. 70.66.59.163 (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Proxying. You are not allowed to edit by proxy while blocked by asking other editors to make changes for you. In addition all editors are held to the same standards, this is not discrimination. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC This clearly was not my fault (Not a denial). The COVID-19 dashboard, which displays the most important references for the article COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia, had not been operating normally for two days in a row, and I was completely frustrated over the incomplete data. Now the dashboard has finally returned to normal. This blocking would not be happening at all if the dashboard were still operating normally. But it did. I cannot turn back time. And I didn't know why I chose to lash out over that... Silly me. I am sure I'll feel better after this... As long as the dashboard does not encounter issues again by then. 70.66.59.163 (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your fault that you got abusive in your edit summaries? Regardless of whose fault it is, it is not acceptable on a collaborative project. If you are unable to be civil in the future, even when you don't get what you want, then you will find yourself blocked again. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did cross the line regards my recent venting/ranting via edit summaries, and I, honestly, have totally regretted it. I thought about it after couple days: After the blocking, I am thinking about coming clean to you, regards what caused/lead to this ongoing situation. I am, frankly, not a threat to this organization, it's just that I do have short temper and I demand/am eager to expect (Near) perfection in every aspect. Article editing makes no exception. I just do not want the articles to be forever stalled. Let alone everyone's got a standard. 70.66.59.163 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

15th

Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and the dispute should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it or an alternate version. tw^sabin 01:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is discrimination against my autistic universe hands down! 70.66.59.163 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16th

Hello, I'm Glane23. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 00:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Glane23 I suggest you to take a skim at this story Here (Not new, but I hope you'll understand what's recently been going on regards the change on the statistical data.). 70.66.59.163 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Regret

I must have had a mental breakdown that day! What have I done, and what exactly was I thinking?! After all, I am going to recover all the missing information when my punishment ends. The article is currently incomplete... 70.66.59.163 (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fair enough. I have removed your block early. Please try to avoid that kind of outburst in the future as the result will be the same. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir/ma'am! 70.66.59.163 (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 21, 2022 - Potential Sad News

@Tenryuu, @HighInBC, @ViperSnake151, etc. and whoever is/are initially responsible for the article COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia since the start of the pandemic (2020), I need to tell you all that: I may have to surrender my daily editing venture because the COVID-19 dashboard is no longer providing data on the provincial recoveries, which makes the data incomplete and harder to manage.
To tell you the truth, this article is, originally, and absolutely none of my concern.
The reason I stepped in since July 2020 is due to the gapped timeline and outdated Health bar and data back in the day. All I ever wanted was trying to make the article as vivid as could be.
After all, get prepared to expect the possible loss of my sight / unexpected retirement, I am sad to say.
This is the potential farewell. 70.66.59.163 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 16, 2022 - I give up, I had enough! 😠

Almost every time when it's time to update, it gets rolled back.
Nobody's showing compassion over my mentality concern, like they do not care at all but to keep on accusing me of committing vandalism which I was not!
Back in October I was even blocked over something I did not even do at all!
As of February 16, 2022, I am officially declaring my RESIGNATION!
FAREWELL, and I am never, ever going to show up as an IP editor in Wikipedia again! 70.66.59.163 (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop using your autism as a shield; it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for you to throw out whenever you don't get your own way. Your cry of This is discrimination against my autistic universe hands down! is ridiculous and a false claim. In October you were temporarily blocked for writing abusive edit summaries because a platform experienced technical difficulties that were beyond anyone's control at the time. Your invectives were under yours, but you decided to publish those anyway. If you're unable to hold yourself accountable for your own behaviour on Wikipedia, than this site is probably not for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu My autism is dead real. You just chose to ignore the definition of it and insist accusing me of faking it all the way.
Think about it, is there actually any time that I've been truly pitied or appreciated of, since I made the debut appearance back in 2020?
Can you also imagine how unbelievable the consequences would be if the article remains untouched for too long?
I do realize that when the article was created sometime in early 2020, it was none of my concern at all.
Do you ever remember how outdated everything was prior to my appearance?
Why can't this article just be as active as the articles focusing on other provinces and regions? 70.66.59.163 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.